Cumberland Council City of Sanctuary motion
A motion aimed at getting the council not to sign up to the place of sanctuary initiative has been voted down
A motion aimed at getting Cumberland Council not to sign up to the place of sanctuary initiative has been overwhelmingly voted down at a packed meeting in Carlisle.
An estimated 150 members of the public turned up at the city’s Civic Centre yesterday, who were both pro and anti-immigration, but many were left disappointed as there were not enough seats in the public gallery.
Two members of the Conservative group proposed the motion: Withdrawal from City of Sanctuary and rescission of A Place of Sanctuary September 27, 2024.
It was proposed by councillor Gareth Ellis (Wetheral, Conservative), who was seconded by councillor Mike Johnson (Thursby, Conservative), and it asked the council to note:
On 27 September 2024, Cumberland Council carried the motion A Place of Sanctuary, including joining the City of Sanctuary Local Authority Network and committing to start work towards the Council of Sanctuary Award, alongside further commitments set out in that motion;
The September 2024 motion text, minutes and debate, made no mention of domestic violence or children in care, nor does the City of Sanctuary network website, policies or handbook;
Domestic abuse only became explicitly included within the council’s sanctuary framing later, in the council’s explanation of Council of Sanctuary at the executive meeting in November 2025;
Cumberland Council will continue to support people who come to the UK through lawful routes, including Homes for Ukraine and the Hong Kong BN(O) route supported by the UK Government’s Welcome Programme;
This motion does not change the council’s statutory safeguarding duties regarding domestic violence or children in care.
The motion stated: “The City of Sanctuary model is not a neutral badge; it expects councils to endorse a charter, work with local City of Sanctuary groups for endorsement, publish a multi-year strategy, publicise achievements, lobby government for national policy change, and support streams of Sanctuary initiatives such as Schools of Sanctuary – which amounts to proselytising in primary and secondary schools under a council-backed banner.
“Cumberland should not be turned into a platform for national lobbying and welcome branding when local services must come first.”
The motion asked the council to resolve:
To rescind in full the motion carried on September 27, 2024, titled A Place of Sanctuary, including all commitments, actions and undertakings contained in that motion. No part of that motion is retained; To end any current involvement with, and not to join or re-join, the City of Sanctuary Local Authority Network, and not to pursue any related accreditation or Place/Council of Sanctuary branding; To instruct officers to stop work whose purpose is to achieve, maintain, promote, or evidence Place/Council of Sanctuary status (including plans, programmes, communications and partnership branding connected to that status); To confirm this decision does not change statutory safeguarding duties with domestic violence, children in care and does not change support delivered under lawful routes, including Homes for Ukraine and BN(O) Hong Kong support. During a meeting of the executive committee in November members voted in favour of endorsing and adopting the sanctuary statement which would make the council area a place where anyone who was in need were welcomed and given the support they needed. Introducing the motion cllr Ellis said the place of sanctuary would be ‘Cumberland wide’ and he added: “We haven’t signed it and we aren’t in it yet.”
Councillor Bob Kelly (Millom, Labour) said we should all support those in need and former Tory prime ministers such as Harold Macmillan and Ted Heath would not support the motion. He added: “We’ve got to support everybody in our communities.”
Councillor Roger Dobson (Corby and Hayton, Lib Dems) said he opposed the motion because there was a misunderstanding of what the place of sanctuary actually did and it would signal that the council was ‘stepping back from compassion’.
And councillor Helen Davison (Belah, Green Party) said she had been asked by residents to oppose the motion because it was divisive and could lead to more racial abuse.
Councillor Trevor Allison (Dalston and Burgh, Conservative) said he was not comfortable with the motion as it was and suggested the matter could be deferred and included in an election manifesto.
Councillor Joseph Ghayouba (Bransty, Labour) spoke of an Iraqi family who became refugees, not once but, three times. He added: “First, our invasion destabilised their lives; then they fled to Syria, only for conflict there to force them on again to Lebanon; finally, after years of uncertainty, they resettled here through a lawful programme.”
And councillor John Mallinson (Houghton and Irthington, Conservative) said he had received a large number of emails on the issue and the debate had become quite toxic. He added: “We need immigration but we do need it to be better managed.”
Councillor Michael Eldon (Cleator Moor West, Labour) said Cleator Moor had welcomed people for centuries, including Irish, Polish, Italian, Ukrainian, Indian, Pakistani, and many others and added: “I will not support anything that divides our communities or fuels hatred.”
Councillor Mike Mitchelson (Brampton, Conservative) suggested that the process should be slowed down before signing up and they should work with the community and listen to their views and cllr Ellis added: “The people of Cumberland need to have an impact on this.”
When it was put to a recorded vote 34 members were against it with 10 in favour and the motion failed.
Speaking after the meeting Adrienne Gill, from Cumberland Sanctuary Network, said: “We are very pleased that this divisive motion has been defeated today and would like to thank all the councillors who spoke out against the motion and all those who voted on the side of humanity and common sense.”
And Chris Allen from Cumbria Action said: “Cumbria Action will continue to fight for the rights and interests of local people from across this county, particularly as it seems elected officials are unwilling or unable to do what their remit demands and listen to all of the public and not just those agreeing with them. Our activism will continue.”